ISSN: 2752-4655 (print)

Second Language Teacher Education ISSN: 2752-4663 (online)

Article

Stand-alone noticing as a resource for

constructing the reflectable: The work of
cultivating professional vision

Hansun Zhang Waring

Abstract
Language teacher educators have made compelling arguments for the importance
of fostering reflective practices. This paper explores how potential ‘reflectables’ may
be located and negotiated through the practice of noticing. Based on a conversa-
tion analytic (CA) investigation of ‘stand-alone’ (not produced in conjunctions with
questions, advice, and assessment) noticings in mentor-trainee conversations, the
analysis shows how such noticing may be used to recalibrate the trainee’s reflective
gaze and develop their professional vision. Findings contribute to the small body of
video-based CA literature on post-observation conferences as well as the broader
literature on noticing as an interactional practice within the specific context of lan-
guage teaching and learning.

KEYWORDS: POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE, TEACHER EDUCATION, TEACHER DEVELOPMENT,

PROFESSIONAL VISION, REFLECTION, REFLECTIVE PRACTICES, CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Teachers College, Columbia University

hz30@tc.columbia.edu

Submitted: 2021-08-06 Accepted: 2021-10-05

SLTE VOL 1.1 2022 25–45

© 2022, EQUINOX PUBLISHING https://doi.org/10.1558/slte.20738 www.equinoxpub.com
26 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

1 Introduction

Second language teacher educators have made compelling arguments for

the importance of fostering reflective practices in teacher training (Copland
& Mann, 2010; Farrell, 2018, 2021). Although reflection can be conducted
in myriad formats across a variety of settings, one key environment for
accommodating and promoting reflective practices is the post-observation
conference, where mentors and trainees engage in discussions on lessons
taught by the trainees and observed by the mentors. Given the centrality of
post-observation conferences as a locus for trainee reflection, a small body
of work has focused on mentor conduct conducive to such reflection such
as withholding value judgement, asking open-ended questions, making
explicit solicitations, and remaining mindful of one’s nonverbal behavior
(e.g., Brandt, 2008; Chamberlin, 2000; Vásquez & Reppen, 2007; Zepeda,
2007). A still smaller body has sought to offer detailed descriptions of such
mentor conduct from a conversation analytic (CA) perspective based on
video data (Kim & Silver, 2016; Wagner & Lewis, 2021; Waring, 2013, 2014).
In this paper, instead of directly engaging the question of what promotes
reflection, I take a step back and explore how potential ‘reflectables’ may
be located (i.e., brought to participants’ joint attention) and negotiated in
the first place, i.e., how ‘noticeables’ can become ‘reflectables’. In particular,
using CA as a tool, I detail the professional (ethno)methods, which I call
‘stand-alone noticing’, of taking up reflectable themes in a trainee’s lesson.
As I shall argue, such (ethno)methods are part and parcel of the mentor’s
ways of developing the trainees’ ‘professional vision’ or ‘socially organized
ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinc-
tive interests of a particular social group’ (Goodwin, 1994, p. 606). I begin
by offering some background on how noticing has been investigated within
the CA framework.

2 Literature Review

As a start, noticing may be thought of as ‘the discursive attending to some-

thing’ (Hopper & LeBaron, 1998, p. 61). More specifically, it is a practice
‘that makes relevant some feature(s) of the setting, including the prior talk,
which may not have been previously taken as relevant’ (Schegloff, 2007,
p. 219). Thus, noticing always ‘involves a foregrounding of something’
(Lehtinen, 2009, p. 467) or ‘calling joint attention to a publicly perceiv-
able referent’ (Pillet-Shore, 2020, p. 4). It is not surprising that Stivers and
Rossano (2010) group noticings with announcements and assessments as
the type of first pair-parts that, unlike requests or invitations, project less
expectation for response (p. 9).
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 27

CA work on noticing to date has enabled us to gather together at least

some partial answers to the following four questions: (1) where does notic-
ing happen in the interaction, (2) what gets noticed, (3) how is noticing
done, and finally, (4) what action does noticing accomplish? Schegloff
(1988), for example, notes that noticings regularly occur during openings
or immediately thereafter (p. 121). Various ‘features’ of the setting can
become candidates as noticeables, such as someone’s appearance, pos-
session, or conduct (e.g., Licoppe, 2017), some text and (prior) talk (e.g.,
Hopper & LeBaron, 1998; Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012), some portion of a
document and the (computer) screen in the work space (e.g., Hindmarsh &
Heath, 2000), or anything in the environment or physical surrounding such
as the weather, a scene, or a Tee Pee’d house (e.g., Keisanen, 2012).
Noticing can be done via a variety of verbal resources such as deictic,
prospective indexical, response cry, address term, perceptual directive (e.g.,
Look), categorization, description, speech volume, and voice animation
(e.g., Caranza, 2016; Hayashi, 2009; Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012). These
verbal resources often work in tandem with the embodiment of gaze, ges-
ture, and body posture as the two mutually elaborate (e.g., Kidwell, 2009).
And formulating the noticeables can be done across a ‘range of granulari-
ties’ (Schegloff, 2000, p. 718). Finally, insofar as such formulations entail
descriptions, participants can boost the plausibility or credibility of the
descriptions by displaying their stance toward how they came to know the
event (Whalen & Zimmerman, 1990).
Noticing may be deployed to accomplish three broad sets of not entirely
mutually exclusive jobs: (a) launching a beginning (e.g., ‘setting talk’ in
Maynard & Zimmerman, 1984), where noticing sets up a puzzle to be
solved in subsequent talk (Hopper & LaBaron, 1998, p. 72), (b) signaling
an evaluative stance with either positive or negative valence (e.g., Pillet-
Shore, 2020; Schegloff, 1988), and (c) facilitating teaching and learning
(e.g., Creider, 2020; Eskildsen, 2019; Greer, 2019; Jacoby & Gonzales, 2002;
Kääntä, 2014; Jacknick & Thornbury, 2013; Kunitz, 2018; Rauniomaa,
Lehtonen, & Summala, 2018; Theodórsdóttir, 2018).
In sum, noticing has been investigated across various everyday and
professional contexts, none of which is addressed specifically to the post-
observation conference, where noticing of a different kind may be observed.
As with producers of noticing under other circumstances, the mentor in
post-observation conferences can also foreground, discursively attend, or
make relevant ‘an indefinitely expandable set of things’ (Schegloff, 1988, p.
120) that have not been ‘previously taken as relevant’ (Schegloff, 2007, p.
219), except that those ‘things’ are not located in, but somewhat removed
from, the immediate setting of the interaction. The noticeables in this
case are various aspects of the lessons just observed or observed in the
28 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

not-so-distant past, and as such, they may be referred to as ‘remote notice-

ables’. By examining the use of such remote noticing, I hope to make an
attempt at pushing the boundary of our understanding of noticing on the
one hand and further excavating the value of noticing for the broader pur-
pose of teaching and learning on the other.

3 Data and Method

Data for this study comprise 50 video-recorded post-observation meetings

that involve 4 mentors (M1-M4) and 46 trainees (TEs) enrolled in four
teaching practica courses required by a graduate TESOL program in the
United States. The mentors were instructors of these practica courses, and
the TEs were graduate students taking the courses while teaching in the
lab school of the TESOL program, where they were regularly observed and
supervised. Post-observation meetings typically occur after the mentor has
completed an observation of the TE’s lesson as the two convene to discuss
various aspects of the lesson as part of the teacher supervision.
The 50 meetings were transcribed in their entirety using a modified ver-
sion of the conversation analytic notations (Jefferson, 2004) (see Appendix).
In particular, nonverbal conduct is represented in italicized text. A dash
that connects the verbal and the nonverbal (or nonverbal and silence) indi-
cates the co-occurrence between the two. For example, ‘nods-yes. sure.’
shows that the participant utters ‘yes. sure.’ while nodding. Absence of the
dash would signal that nodding occurs before the words.
An initial search through the corpus using the criterion of ‘foreground-
ing or making relevant an aspect of the lesson’ yielded a collection of 237
cases of noticing. The 237 cases were then inspected again to exclude those
that contained explicit assessments such as X was great or I like that you
did X, which resulted in a slightly smaller collection of 192 cases that com-
prise ostensibly non-evaluative noticings. A closer examination of the 192
cases then revealed that despite their non-evaluative appearance, most of
the cases (see Figure 1) often occur as preparation or support for assess-
ments, advice, or questions in the same multi-unit turn. Some manifest a
mixture of these elements (e.g., noticing as post-assessment and preface to
advice). It is not surprising that the vast majority of noticings (over 70%)
(see Figure 1) are carried out in conjunction with assessments, advice, and
questions (Waring, 2013, 2014) that evidently align with the broader edu-
cational purpose of these meetings.
Stand-alone noticings (e.g., They seemed so quiet.) or noticings that are
not produced in the same multi-unit turn in the service of other actions are
relatively rare (see Figure 1). I am intrigued by their rarity on the one hand
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 29

and curious about their utility on the other. Given the inherent asymmetry
of the encounter, TEs tend to treat mentor questions as ‘tests’ (Waring,
2014, p. 117) and are typically positioned as passive recipients of advice
and assessments although both advice and assessments may be surpris-
ingly generative (Waring, 2013), and a persistent challenge for mentors is to
enable open conversations that can best facilitate TE growth. While being
fully aware of the inescapable asymmetry that is omnipresent throughout
mentor-trainee conversations, I can’t help but wonder whether an at least
ostensibly evaluation-free observation such as the stand-alone noticing
could get us a step closer to building that ideal space for democratic con-
versations. For the purpose of this paper then, my analytic eye is directly
and exclusively trained on the small collection of 33 cases of stand-alone
noticings.

21
11%
33
17% 138
72%

noticing pre- or post- assessment/advice/question stand-alone noticing mixed

Figure 1: Rarity of Stand-alone Noticings

The analysis was conducted within a CA framework (Sidnell, 2013).

CA aims to uncover the tacit methods of social interaction from an emic
perspective. Analysts work with audio or video-recorded naturally occur-
ring social interaction along with its transcripts that capture a full range
of details such as volume, pace, and length of silence (see Appendix). It
is in these minute details that evidence is located for how social actions
such as requesting or complaining are accomplished by the participants
themselves. Analysis revolves around ‘consistently and insistently’ asking
a single question: why that now – that is, why something is said or done
in that particular way at that particular time (Heritage & Clayman, 2010,
p. 14). As will be shown, by making simple but specific observations of TE
or student behavior during the lesson (also see ‘descriptive feedback’ in
Rogers, 2006), the mentors strive to foster practices of ‘seeing’ (e.g., profes-
sional visions) crucial for their professional work.
30 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

4 Analysis and Findings

Of the 33 cases of stand-alone noticings, 11 are produced in the initiating

or first position, and 22 in the responsive or second position. First-position
noticings are those launched as an initiating action, and second-position
noticings as a responsive action. In a question-answer sequence, for
example, the question sits in the first position, and the answer second. In
choosing specific extracts for inclusion, I strive to demonstrate maximum
diversity: specimen from different mentors showcasing variations of the
practices. Although I was unable to maintain that ideal in the end given the
space constraints, I hope that the reader will still find the selection below
sufficient for making my case.

4.1 First Position Noticing

Of the 11 cases of first position noticings, 8 are negatively and 3 positively

valanced. In what follows, I show two cases of negative noticing. Extract
(1) begins with TE accepting M1’s prior advice and thereby closing the
sequence. In line 02, M1 launches his next point with a noticing that high-
lights a problematic TE behavior, i.e., ask questions and answer yourself
very often (lines 2–3, 5–6).
(1) M1 answer yourself
01 TE: =nods, gz to mid-distance-mhm,
02 M1:  gz to his paper-.hh so, you ↑a:sk
03 questions and gz to TE-[a:ns(h)w(h)er
04 TE: [begins to smile
05 M1: yo(h)urse(h)lf. points to TE with pen-
06 v(h)e:r(h)y o:(h)f[ten. ]
07 TE: looks ‘embarrassed’-[$rea]ll(h)↑y(h):$
08 hand to mouth with gz shift from paper to M1-hheeh
09 M1: smiles-yes.
10 TE: $that’s probably I’m ne[rvous. (syl) ]$
11 M1: [nerv- okay.]
12 TE: nods-[ $yea:h.$ ]
13 M1: [>okay< huh] >you’re okay.< [ .hhh ]
14 TE: nods/smiles-[I’ll try]
15 [tuh pay attention to tha:t.]
((lines omitted of M1 giving, enacting, and accounting for his advice of ‘bite inside
your cheek’ to avoid answering own question, which TE accepts before continuing
to explain how she’s not good at being observed))
16 TE: I- I do think like jus in my [ hea:d, ]
17 M1: gz to TE/nods-[ºyeah.º]
18 TE: that it- [there’s] more synapses [firing en I- ]
19 M1: smiles-[↓yeah.] [well I can I can]
20 guarantee you’re gonna be observed m↑a[ny times,]
21 TE: nods-[ a lo:t. ]
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 31

22 M1: in yer care(h)e(h)r [heh heh]

23 TE: nods-[ yea:h. ] yeah.

A number of observations may be made of the design of M1’s noticing (line

02). First, it is packaged with the format of You do X in the present tense
that highlights the habitual nature of the event despite its occurrence in
the past. Second, the turn-initial so accompanied by the mentor’s gaze to
his notes appears to suggest that the ensuing observation is perhaps drawn
from his list of items, i.e., part of his professional agenda that TE is invited
to attend to. Third, the problematic characterization answer yourself very
often is delivered with interpolated particles of aspiration (IPAs), signaling
its delicate nature (Potter & Hepburn, 2010). Fourth, the beginning of this
characterization coincides with a gaze shift to TE that signals emphasis,
and this emphasis is further upgraded with the pointing gesture along with
the verbal upgrade of very often.
In line 04, TE begins to smile, as if anticipating the negative valence
of M1’s unfolding remark, and her subsequent uptake, in response to the
increment very often possibly produced to pursue a response, is delivered
in transitional overlap (Jefferson, 1983) accompanied by the facial gesture
of ‘embarrassed’ while uttering the laughter-infiltrated newsmark really
(Maynard, 2003) in raised pitch. This is followed by a laugh token accom-
panied by the ‘hand-to-mouth’ (what appears to be a ‘I can’t believe I did
that’) gesture. In other words, M1’s noticing is treated as news by TE and
received with good humor. We can also observe TE’s alignment with M1’s
stance toward the behavior as problematic. Immediately after M1’s smiley
yes that confirms his observation (line 09), TE proceeds to account, in a
smiley voice, for her behavior, which she attributes to her being nervous,
followed by her promise to pay attention to that (lines 14–15).
In response, M1 quickly acknowledges TE’s account before launching
his advice of how to prevent the problematic behavior (data not shown),
thereby essentially bypassing the account, and heading straight toward fix-
ing the problem. It is not surprising then that, after accepting the advice,
TE returns to her account by offering further elaboration on her difficulty
with being observed – now with the vivid imagery of more synapses firing
illustrating her nervousness (line 18), perhaps to pursue an uptake that’s
more fitted to the account itself, which she then gets. While her initial
account is responded to with M1’s advice of bite inside your cheek (not
shown) addressed to the specific behavior itself, what TE’s elaboration sets
off is M1’s interruptive uptake (line 19) that highlights the guarantee that
being observed is a normal part of one’s teaching career (lines 20 & 22).
This implicit advice to acclimate oneself to regular observations (although
not a remedy for the nervousness itself ) then targets, not TE’s behavior, but
32 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

her broader understanding of what is entailed in one’s journey of profes-

sional development. This is accepted by TE with a collaborative completion
(line 21) and the confirming yeah yeah (line 23) accompanied by nodding.
Thus, M1’s noticing (1) directs TE’s attention toward an aspect of her
behavior that she wasn’t aware of herself and (2) offers an opportunity for
TE to display her own stance toward the noticeable, or a reflectable by
extension. When the stances align as they do in this case, one might argue
that a solid launching pad is being built for the mentor to proceed with his
advice that ends up targeting not just TE’s behavior but also her thinking.
Put otherwise, by tossing out a ‘reflectable’ as such, M1 manages to not
only cultivate a reflective gaze toward the trainee’s own conduct but also
establish a starting point for further mentoring work.
The next extract presents an example where the mentor’s and the TE’s
stances toward a noticeable don’t clearly align. It begins with M2 launching
the next item of the meeting as she points to the notes between the two. TE
aligns with that orientation with what else in sotto voce, and the two almost
simultaneously arrive at the written observation of the students not work-
ing in groups (lines 02–03). This initial written observation in the format
of They didn’t do X is followed by M2’s noticing as she straightens up from
the notes and brings her gaze to TE (lines 04–05).
(2) M2 missing from instruction
01 M2 points to paper between the two-and thee u:h
02 TE: ººwhat else.ºº oh [>they didn’t work ºtogether.º< ]
03 M2: [ <WEren’t in groups .h ]
04 straightens and speaks in whispering voice and gaze to TE-
05  Oh you didn’t tell them to work ºwith a partne:r.º
06 [ smiles ]
07 TE: [º↓oh I didn’t?º]-in matching ‘whispering’ voice
08 M2: $No:. [I think that was missing]
09 TE: [ o:↑:↓:h. ]
10 M2: gz down/points to paper-[from the instructions.]$
11 TE: shifts gz to paper-[ aw:::h. ]
12 okay,=
13 M2:  =so it- yeah. they we:re (.) readi:ng (.) ºI forget
14 exactly lifts 2nd page-↑what activity is this?º
((lines omitted identifying which activity it was))
15 M2 =>right.< .hh straightens from paper with gz to TE-
16 and they were doing this silently first.
17 [remember?] they were just readi:ng]
18 TE: [ mm hm? ]-nods nods~yeah, nods.]
20 M2 .hh and just tell them (0.8) ↓with your partner,
21 [ ºy’know?º ] >come up with<] (.)
22 TE: [quick nods] nods-yeah. ]
23 =>see that’s really< hard though. because
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 33

((lines omitted where TE explains some of her students’ reluctance to jump into
group work without preparation))
24 M2: =what ↑if you have the instructions on the:
25 gaze to TE-handout.

Consistent with our earlier observation, the noticing is also done in a

You+predicate format, except that instead of you do X, which treats the
noticeable as a regular occurrence, we have here You didn’t do X. The nega-
tive formulation treats the noticeable as something that didn’t occur but
should have – an arguably veiled complaint (Schegloff, 1988) despite its
appearance of making a simple observation. The subtle complaining stance
is also conveyed by the replacement of the pronoun they (lines 02–03) with
that of you along with the stress on tell in the mentor’s noticing turn (line
05), thus specifically attributing responsibility to the trainee. The pivot is
additionally marked by the turn-initial emphatically delivered change-of-
state oh (Heritage, 1984). Instead of signaling the delicateness of this action
with laugh tokens, the mentor adopts a whispering voice that seems to
treat the noticeable as faux pas only sharable by the two backstage and not
to be divulged to the public (see ‘backstage solidarity’ in Goffman, 1959,
p. 132). While the emphasis on tell highlights the nature of the ‘crime’, the
‘collusive’ delivery allows the mentor to point to a potential problem as an
aligning team member rather than an external judge. This aligning stance
is further evidenced in the visible smile that ensues (line 06).
In overlap with M2’s smile is TE’s oh I didn’t?, which treats M2’s noticing
as news (Heritage, 1984) and is similarly delivered in a whispering tone that
maintains the backstage collusion frame M2 has established so far. There
is, however, no explicit orientation toward the negative noticing as suggest-
ing a problem. After further failures to obtain any alignment from TE with
her problematizing stance (lines 08–12), M2 proceeds to shift her focus
from TE to the student behavior that results from TE’s lack of instruction
(lines 13–17), which TE receives with mm hm and yeah accompanied with
nodding. Still, there is no indication that what is being noticed by M2 is
treated as problematic by TE. It is at this point that M2 launches her advice
(line 20). Not surprisingly, the advice is met with TE’s resistance with an
extended account starting in line 23 (data not shown). The sequence ends
with M2 modifying her advice (lines 24–25) and TE’s eventual acceptance
(not shown). One might argue that although TE does not explicitly treat the
noticeable as problematic, she does so implicitly by claiming to be unaware
of not having done X (line 07) and by providing an alternative account for
students not working together (omitted lines after 23).
Thus, although the noticings in this case also bring up an aspect of TE’s
teaching that she wasn’t herself aware of, TE here does not clearly align
with the mentor’s treatment of the noticeable as problematic, not even
34 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

after the initial noticing is rendered more specific – upgraded with greater
granularity (Schegloff, 2000). Still, one might argue that these noticings
create a space for negotiating, or more specifically, for M2 to gauge TE’s
understanding of a reflectable, thus establishing a basis upon which further
problem-solving conversations can proceed.
As noted earlier, noticings may be positively-valanced as well. In one
instance that involves M3, for example, the mentor produces an explicit
noticing of a ‘fun game’ immediately after the two get settled, which is
promptly taken up by TE as an opportunity to describe, in a multi-unit
turn, the origin and rationale for designing the game as well as, at least in
part, an opportunity to perhaps address M3’s possible insufficient appreci-
ation for the little game. In other words, M3’s noticing obtains TE’s stance
toward, and her ‘designer’s thinking’ behind, the activity, which crystalize
for both its positive qualities – a ‘good will’ launching pad for any upcom-
ing work.
In sum, these first position noticings are produced in the sequence-
initial position with the format of (I noticed) you did(n’t)/do X or they
did/were doing X, which may be upgraded with greater granularity. By
calling attention to an aspect of the trainee’s teaching that the latter was
not themselves aware of, such noticings advance a pedagogy of seeing the
previously unseen as part of the mentors’ efforts to develop the trainees’
professional vision. Regardless of whether TEs treat the noticings as news
or whether they affiliate with the mentor’s stance, they tend to provide
accounts that reveal a range of behind-the-scenes feelings or thoughts.
To a certain extent then, these noticings offer up potential reflectables (cf.
‘fishing device’ in Pomerantz, 1980) that allow the mentors to gauge TE’s
stances, which may in turn facilitate further mentoring work.

4.2 Second Position Noticing

Second-position noticings may either affiliate or disaffiliate with the stance

conveyed in TEs’ prior talk. The 22 cases of second position noticings are
evenly split between being affiliative (e.g., agree) and disaffiliative (e.g., dis-
agree), and in what follows, I show one case of each.

4.2.1 Affiliative

In the segment below, TE draws attention to her trouble with time manage-
ment, calling it her weakest point (not shown). The segment begins with
her illustrating the issue by describing her conduct and thoughts in the
moment (lines 1–2, 4, 7–8, 10), and M1 closely aligns as a recipient of that
reflection largely through nods, smiles, and minimal response tokens (lines
03, 05–06, 09).
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 35

(3) M1 did notice that

01 TE: I often fi:nd that what- (.) is supposed to be a bri:ef
02 check [of student’s understanding?]
03 M1: [ nods ]
04 TE: (.) suddenly becomes as long as the activity itself.
05 M1: nods-.tch
06 [ nods ]
07 TE: [just because I want to make sure that everybody under]
08 [ stood and I’m no:t su:re ]
09 M1: [ large nods and smile-ºmhm, mhmº ]
10 TE: w- where to cut it off.=
11 M1:  = nods and points with smile-(ºmk-º) I: did >notice that an’
12 we’re g- [actually< talk about that.=where .hh you were-]
13 TE: [ nods ]
14 M1: kept asking leans forward and snaps fingers at ‘question’ ‘this’ ‘that’
15 ->>question after question after question ,
16 [to make sure they do understand this little bit]
17 [ smiles ]
18 to make sure they do [understand that little bit<<]
19 TE: [ nods and smiles ]
20 M1: [.hhh ]-gz up
21 TE: [yea:h.]
22 M1: gz back to T->an’ I’m actu- gonna talk
23 [about that< how to re]duce that ((continues))
24 TE: [ nods ]

Note that M1’s initial stand-alone nods develop into large nods in con-
junction with the smiling and the double mhm in line 09 as he gears up
for incipient speakership (Jefferson, 1993) before TE brings her turn con-
structional unit (TCU) to its completion to its completion in line 08. He
then lets TE complete her next TCU in line 10 before launching his explicit
claim of noticing in line 11. One might say that up to this point, M1 has
already done a great deal of interactional work to establish the independent
basis for his noticing, having treated TE’s telling so far as not news. Several
observations may be made of the design of M1’s noticing turn itself. First,
with an ensemble of verbal and visible resources, M1 puts forth a strong
claim of the independent nature of his noticing with the contrastive stress
on did in I did notice that (line 11), the nodding and smiling in conjunc-
tion with the pointing (line 11), as well as the mention of his plan (line 12),
prior to TE’s sharing, to talk about that. Second, M1 also demonstrates the
independent nature of his noticing through the vivid and rhythmic enact-
ment of TE’s teaching with the fast pace and finger snapping (lines 14–16,
18), which receive TE’s own smiling and nodding (lines 17 & 19). Third,
M1’s noticing unpacks and re-specifies TE’s reported intent (to make sure
that everyone understood) and her observation of the sudden change
(from a brief check to a long activity) as a series of quickly fired questions
36 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

that she kept asking- with the format, again, of You did X (see ‘alterna-
tive, subsequent descriptions’ in Sidnell & Barnes, 2009). In other words,
M1 reframes intent and agentless change into specific TE behavior in the
moment. While intent as well as the situation of ‘X suddenly becomes Y’ is
less susceptible to change, behavior is. The sequence ends with M1 repeat-
ing his plan to address the issue with the specific goal to reduce that prob-
lematic behavior for TE (lines 22–23), with which TE aligns (line 24).
To recap, a great deal of work has gone into framing this second posi-
tion noticing as independent, and the affiliative stance is largely conveyed
through the claim and display of recognition of TE’s own descriptions,
which strongly validates those descriptions. And in this particular case,
the noticing also serves to prep an intersubjectively established problem
territory for upcoming work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the
specific design of the noticing here, compared to TE’s own observations,
embodies a shift from intent to behavior, from circumstance to agency, and
from broad strokes to specific portrayals. Put otherwise, one might argue
that it demonstrates one way of re-adjusting TE’s reflective gaze.
Similar to first position noticings, the affiliative second position notic-
ings also feature the format of (I noticed) person reference+predicate. They
are additionally marked as affiliative and independently arrived at via both
verbal and visible means, and part of the independent framing entails pro-
viding descriptions of greater granularity that sometimes also embodies
a shift of focus from mental states to concrete behavior that foregrounds
teacher agency. By producing these noticings, the mentor manages to sub-
stantively validate TE reflections, establish a common ground for further
work, and provide an opportunity for TEs to further display their knowl-
edge and divulge their stance. At the same time, these noticings operate on
the TE’s own observations and reflections by exemplifying ‘finer’ ways of
seeing as part and parcel of developing the TEs’ professional vision. These
noticings are received with confirmation, appreciation, accounts, and/or
display of greater epistemic authority.

4.2.2 Disaffiliative

In one-third of the stand-alone noticing cases, the mentor’s second posi-

tion noticings also disaffiliate with the trainee’s observations by proposing
an alternative or more nuanced way of seeing. In the extract below, TE’s
complaint about her student is reframed, through noticing, as an issue that
falls within her own domains of responsibility.
Prior to the extract below, TE has started talking about a ‘problem’
French student who took the initiative to place herself in a lower level class
in order to work on grammar, and throughout the telling, the mentor’s
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 37

responses remain minimal and restrained with (slight) nods (data not
shown). The segment begins with TE’s characterization of the student with
an extreme case formulation (ECF) (Pomerantz, 1986) as someone who
does not cooperate at all (line 01).
(4) M2 she bored
01 TE: a:nd (.) >she doesn’t< cooperate at all?
02 M2:  gz away/scowls/slight headshake->w- yeah yeah.< she has
03 gz back to TE-an attitude.=[she’s $bored.$]
04 TE: [ hih-hih-hih ]
05 M2: gz down to notes- [$right right right.$] yea:h, ]
06 TE: [ h↑ih hih hh ]°(syl syl)°]
07 I don’t know if I should say this? But
((lines omitted where TE continues to complain about the student))
08 TE: she was actually um (.) sitting (.) um (.) with her
09 back towards you? [and I could] s- literally-
10 M2: [ slight nod ]
11 TE: literally see her face [>(syl syl)< expression]
12 M2: [ slight nod]
13 TE: change? [h .h when I s]aid you should talk
14 M2: [ slight nod ]
15 TE: [to: other people?]=so it’s- .hh [>it was a little-<]
16 M2: [ slight nod ] [ can you just ]
17 assi:gn °them?°=instead of giving the:m (.)
18 TE: °like-°
19 M2: I think you- they need more structure.
20 TE: [ °okay.° ]
21 M2: [do you talk to ] y- A talks to B:?=
22 [ B to- ] >just tell them what< to do]. Don’t ((continues))
23 TE: [°↑o::kay.]=so may be a (syl syl)°- ]

When TE brings her complaint to a completion in line 01, a response is

due from M2. What we observe is the absence of affiliation despite her use
of yeah. First, her visible conduct of gaze away in addition to the scowl and
slight headshake seems to convey a very restrained or downgraded uptake
of TE’s ECF-formulated complaint, and this rather under-whelming uptake
continues throughout TE’s further telling (data not fully shown; e.g., line
10, 12, 16). Second, the turn-initial almost imperceptible w (which may
be hearable as the beginning of well) is followed by the fast-paced yeah
yeah hearable as being pro forma. Third and perhaps most importantly,
the noticings of she has an attitude and she’s bored offer a slightly different
characterization and diagnosis of the student’s behavior. If having (and
presumably showing) an attitude is a (slightly downgraded problematic)
behavior that aligns with TE’s ‘uncooperative’ assessment, boredom
provides an account for that attitude, which then renders the culpability
for the problem ambiguous – is she bored because she made the wrong
38 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

decision to join a lower-level class, or is she bored because the class is less
than stimulating? That M1 is delivering a dispreferred, thereby disaffiliative,
action is in part signaled in the mitigation of smiley voice and the multiple
right’s (lines 03 & 05) as well as the gaze shift toward her notes (Kendrick
& Holler, 2017). Still, it is unclear whether the disaffiliation is registered
by TE, who responds with laughter (lines 04 & 06) and further complaints
(beginning in line 07) about the student.
In line 15, as TE appears to start bringing her account into a possible
completion, M2 interjects with the advice to structure her activities with
more specific directives (lines 16, 17, 19 & 22), which implicitly treats TE
as at least partially responsible for the student’s ‘uncooperative’ behavior.
As can be seen, TE aligns with the advising activity immediately by asking
for specifics (line 18), accepting it (line 20), and displaying her understand-
ing of it (line 23). By reframing uncooperative as bored then, the mentor’s
noticing here is designed as a corrective to redirect TE’s reflective gaze (or
develop her professional vision) toward a re-analysis of the problem that
attributes greater agency to TE herself, except that this redirection is not
registered by TE until explicit advice is given.
In another instance that involved M4, the trainee’s self-deprecation is
treated as too simplistic as the mentor introduces greater complexities
into the issue. In fact, cultivating an alternative way of seeing with a view
toward developing the trainees’ professional vision appears to be the com-
mon thread running through the disaffilative second position noticings. In
these cases, the mentor disaffiliates with the trainee’s complaints either by
shifting her analytical gaze toward specific behavior within the trainee’s
own domain of responsibility or by introducing greater complexities into
the consideration of the same observable phenomenon. These pushes for
alternative ways of seeing receive various aligning, although generally min-
imal and sometimes delayed, responses from the trainees.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

As shown, mentor noticings can be delivered with the format of Personal

Pronoun+predicate, where the use of present tense, in particular, may sug-
gest the habitual nature of an event and thereby a relatively more severe
nature of a problem. The noticing itself may also be explicitly marked
with, for example, I did notice. Other turn-initial items such as so or oh
also play a part in constructing the noticing as drawn from written notes
(as part of the mentor’s professional agenda) or denoting a shift from a
previous formulation. The first position noticings draw the trainees’ atten-
tion to an aspect of their teaching that they themselves may or may not
have been previously aware of. The second position noticings may either
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 39

affiliate or disaffiliate with TEs’ own observations or reflections. While

validating trainee stances in ways that highlight the independently arrived-
at nature of these noticings, the affiliative noticings in part involve finer
descriptions with a greater focus on observable behaviors that are more
susceptible to change. The disaffiliative noticings, on the other hand, initi-
ate a departure from TE stances by inviting an alternative way of seeing
the same observable in a way that foregrounds TE agency and analytical
complexities. While the first position noticings tend to be treated as news
and ‘reflectables’ and are responded to with TE accounts that may facilitate
subsequent mentoring work, the second position noticings are received
with variably aligning responses in addition to accounts that may or may
not lead to explicit advising.
A major theme featured in all these noticings regardless of their sequen-
tial positions appears to be the cultivation of professional vision. Important
mentoring work is carried out in this recalibration of the trainee’s reflective
gaze as it encourages greater specificity in making observations, promotes
stronger awareness of one’s own behavior, and foregrounds trainee agency
in terms of observable conduct amenable to change. This is, put otherwise,
the work of developing TEs’ professional vision. Findings of this study then
extend Goodwin’s (1994) pioneering conceptualization of professional
vision by (1) offering a heuristic of such vision as (a) seeing what wasn’t
seeing, (b) seeing with greater granularity, or (c) seeing the phenomenon in
entirely different ways, and by (2) describing yet another way of cultivating
and establishing such vision. Instead of coding, highlighting, or produc-
ing a material representation of elements in the immediate environment,
the mentors in my study do noticing by referencing an occurrence in the
past, thus bringing that occurrence into joint attention for further reflec-
tive work.
As such, these findings may also add values to the larger educational
endeavor of specifying, developing, and assessing the professional vision
of classroom events (Lachner, Jaridkza, & Nuckles, 2016; Sherin, 2001; Van
Es & Sherin, 2002). According to Siedel and Sturmer (2014), the two com-
ponents of professional vision are noticing (of goal clarity, teacher support,
and learning climate) and reasoning (description, explanation, and predic-
tion). What the above analysis has shown is that, rather than belonging
to a separate category such as reasoning, description is an integral part of
noticing (e.g., ‘you didn’t ask them to work together’ or ‘She’s bored’). In fact,
it is how noticing is brought into being in the moment-to-moment interac-
tion. And perhaps more importantly, the prior analysis complements the
existing scholarship on professional vision in educational contexts by offer-
ing a detailed understanding of the mentor’s work in nurturing the trainee’s
professional vision.
40 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

These findings contribute to the small body of video-based CA literature

on post-observation conferences by providing a forensic understanding of
how reflectables are located and negotiated in mentor-trainee interaction
and how such baseline work can cultivate a professional vision founda-
tional to teacher development. The specific practices identified above also
add to the broader conversation analytic literature on noticing by demon-
strating how it can be launched remotely with targets outside the imme-
diate environment of interaction, and in particular, how that works in a
context of teaching and learning in which the matter of noticing has yet to
receive sufficient analytic attention.
For the field of language teacher education that places a premium on
reflective practices in particular, the above analysis describes one way in
which reflective conversation may be launched, thereby answering the
call for more data-based accounts for how reflection gets done (Mann &
Walsh, 2013, 2017). One might argue that by simply offering a descrip-
tion, without any judgment or advice, of a specific conduct in a stream of
past events, noticings constitute one type of ‘low control’ (Wood, 1992)
moves (i.e., alternatives to questions such as telling and speculating) that
are uniquely effective in engendering robust pupil talk (Mercer, 1992) and
supporting student learning (Sharpe, 2008). The potential of such low-
control moves for democratizing reflective conversions could certainly
benefit from further research. In addition, compared to questions that
directly solicit reflection such as ‘How do you think it went?’, where the ‘it’
is assumed rather than unpacked, ‘You did X’ offers up a specific ‘it’ to be
reflected upon especially when novice teachers would typically not know
where to look in the first place. In other words, these noticings that guide
the TEs’ reflective gaze can constitute a powerful tool for developing their
professional vision before they are ready for any deep-dive into analyzing
and assessing their own conduct. They lie at the very foundation of the
work of mentoring. The data above, for example, may provide a starting
point for engaging teacher educators in thinking about the kinds of con-
versations we can have with our mentees – one noticeable at a time. It is
through such micro-reflection (Waring & Creider, 2021) that we develop
our professional vision one moment at a time.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the mentors and teachers who generously allowed

my cameras into an intimate space of their professional work. I would also
like to thank Di Yu, Gahye Song, Carol Lo, and Nadja Tardic for producing
the initial transcripts of these meetings and to Elizabeth Reddington for
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 41

helping me build the larger ‘noticing’ collection. And finally, to the anony-
mous reviewers, thank you for making me look better.

References
Brandt, C. (2008). Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation. ELT
Journal, 62(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm076
Caranza, A. V. (2016). Remembering and noticing: A conversation-analytic study
of ‘ah’ in Mexican Spanish talk. Spanish in Context, 13(2), 212–236.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.2.03vaz
Chamberlin, C. R. (2000). TESL degree candidates’ perceptions of trust in super-
visors. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587780
Copland, F., & Mann, S. (2010). Dialogic talk in the post-observation confer-
ence: An investment for reflection. In G. Park (Ed.), Observation of teaching:
Bridging theory and practice through research on teaching (pp. 175–191).
Lincom Europa Publishing.
Creider, S. (2020). Student talk as a resource: Integrating conflicting agendas in
math tutoring sessions. Linguistics & Education, 58.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100822
Eskildsen, S. W. (2019). Learning behavior in the wild: How people achieve L2
learning outside of class. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler,
& A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning in
action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp.
105–129). Springer.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2021). Reflective language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropological Association,
96(3), 606–636. https://www.jstor.org/stable/682303
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and
changing landscapes. Semiotica, 19(1/4): 257–286.
https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0063
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Greer, T. (2019). Noticing words in the wild. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S.
Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research
on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of L2 interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp.
131–158). Springer.
Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: Eh – prefaced turns
in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2100–2129.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential place-
ment. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies
in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and
institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in
workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1855–1878.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8
42 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

Hopper, R., & LeBaron, C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 59–74.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_4
Jacknick, C., & Thornbury, S. (2013). The task at hand: Noticing as a mind–body–
world phenomenon. In J. Bergsleithner, S. Nagem Frota, & J. Yoshioka (Eds.),
Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt
(pp. 309–330). National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (2002). Saying what wasn’t said: Negative observation as
a linguistic resource for the interactional achievements of performance feed-
back. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn
and sequence (pp. 123–164). Oxford University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers
in Language and Literature, 28, 1–28. https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/
Jefferson/Onset.pdf
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift
implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.
H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.
13–34). John Benjamins.
Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic
displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010
Keisanen, T. (2012). ‘Uh-oh, we were going there’: Environmentally occasioned
noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 197–222.
https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0061
Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference
in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
Kidwell, M. (2009). Gaze shifts as an interactional resource for very young chil-
dren. Discourse Processes, 46, 145–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728926
Kim, Y., & Silver, R. E. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation
conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3), 203–219.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022487116637120
Kunitz, S. (2018). Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as
a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 64–81.
https://doi.org/10.1111/MODL.12458
Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nuckles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher?
Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional
Science, 44, 197–203.
Lehtinen, E. (2009). Practical hermeneutics: Noticing in Bible Study interaction.
Human Studies, 32(4), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-009-9132-2
Licoppe, C. (2017). Skype appearances, multiple greetings and ‘coucou’: The
sequential organization of video-mediated conversation openings. Pragmatics,
27(3), 351–386. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.3.03lic
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 43

Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2013). RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective prac-
tice. Applied Linguistics Review, 41(2), 291–315.
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0013
Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practices in English language teaching.
Routledge.
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday
talk and clinical settings. University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social
organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 301–316.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633
Mercer, N. (1992). Talk for teaching and learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking
voices: The work of the Natinal Oracy Project (pp. 201–214). Hodder and
Stoughton.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2020). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-
face openings. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 10–39.
https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.481
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’.
Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.
Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Putting aspiration into words: ‘Laugh particles’,
managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. Journal of Pragmatics,
42, 1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003
Rauniomaa, M., Lehtonen, E., & Summala, H. (2018). Noticings with instructional
implications in post-license driver training. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28,
326–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12199
Rogers, C. (2006). Attending to student voice: The impact of descriptive feedback
on learning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209–237.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00353.x
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A.
Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135).
Northeastern University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conver-
sation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Sharpe, T. (2008). How can teacher talk support learning? Linguistics and
Education, 19, 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.001
Sherin, M. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In
T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. E. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy:
Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 75–93). Lawrence Erbaum.
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers
(Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–101). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, J., & Barnes, R. (2009). Alternative, subsequent descriptions. In J. Sidnell,
M. Hayashi, & G. Raymond (Eds.), Conversational repair and human under-
standing (pp. 322–342). Cambridge University Press.
44 SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

Siedel, T., & Sturmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of profes-
sional vision in preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
51(4), 739–771. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language &
Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and
explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal,
102 (Supplement 2018), 30–45.
Van Es, E., & Sherin, M. D. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’
interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 10(4), 571–596.
Vásquez, C., & Reppen, R. (2007). Transforming practice: Changing patterns
of participation in post-observation meetings. Language Awareness, 16(3),
153–172. https://doi.org/10.2167/la454.0
Wagner, S., & Lewis, K. B. (2021). Third-party complaints in teacher post-
observation meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 378–390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.003
Waring, H. Z. (2013). Two mentor practices for generating teacher reflection
without explicit solicitations. RELC Journal, 44(1), 103–119.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0033688212473296
Waring, H. Z. (2014). Mentor invitation for reflection in post-observation confer-
ences. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 99–123.
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0005
Waring, H. Z., & Creider, S. C. (2021). Micro-reflection on classroom communica-
tion: A FAB Framework. Equinox.
Whalen, M. R., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epis-
temology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society, 19(4), 465–492.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014779
Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk: How modes of teacher talk affect pupil partici-
pation. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy
Project (pp. 201–214). Hodder and Stoughton.
Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Eye on
Education.
 STAND-ALONE NOTICING AS A RESOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE REFLECTABLE 45

Appendix: CA Transcription Notations

. falling intonation
? rising intonation
, continuing intonation
- abrupt cut-off
:: prolonging of sound
word stress
word greater stress with more underlining
WORD loud speech
°word° quiet speech
word raised pitch
word lowered pitch
>word< quicker speech
<word> slowed speech
< jump start or rushed start
hh aspiration or laughter
.hh inhalation or inbreath
(hh) laugh tokens inside word boundaries
[] beginning and ending of simultaneous conduct
= latch or contiguous utterances of the same speaker
(2.4) length of a silence in 10ths of a second
(.) micro-pause, 0.2 second or less
() non-transcribable talk
(syl) syllable in non-transcribable talk
$word$ smiley voice
#word# squeaky voice
words nonverbal conduct
{word-word} dash to indicate co-occurrence of nonverbal behavior and verbal ele-
ments, and curly brackets beginning and ending of such co-occurrence
if necessary
word~word verbal begins somewhere in the midst of nonverbal
((word)) transcriber comments
gz gaze